Game of Thrones, 24 and Hollyoaks: Is there too much violence on TV?

Not for the faint-hearted… Game of Thrones (Picture: HBO/Sky Atlantic)

It seems today, that all you see… is violence in movies and more violence on TV. Or so some viewers, including Family Guy’s Lois Griffin, would have us believe.

There was minor outrage last month after the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) revealed that Tom Cruise action thriller Jack Reacher was the most complained about movie of 2013.

How many people complained that the film, which made a fairly hefty £9m at the box office here, should have received a higher certificate than 12A? Just 26. More of a light drizzle in a teacup than a storm, then.

A few weeks previously, broadcasting watchdog Ofcom revealed that British TV viewers are more accepting of violence on the small screen.

Its survey showed that 35 per cent of viewers believe there is excessive violence on television, a steep drop from 55% six years ago. So is our reaction to violence on television evolving?

‘However, there are still standards that people expect of broadcasters when judging whether a specific violent portrayal should have been shown or not.

‘Viewers have become more accepting of certain types of portrayals over time but have they become totally desensitised? No. Viewers still display standards which show they will not tolerate programmes that they believe have gone too far – either for them or for their children.’

For half a century, Britain’s parents have relied on the ultimate televisual babysitter: the watershed. But with the advent of catch-up TV and various streaming services that allow us to watch what we want when we want it, does the 9pm watershed still matter?

‘It does for public service broadcast channels but in a wider sense it is less relevant,’ said Prof Gunter, who called the watershed ‘a contract between broadcasters and parents’.

He added: ‘With the recording, playback and non-linear viewing capabilities accorded to viewers today, it can be circumvented. This is especially true for children who know how to use all these new viewing devices as well as, if not better, than their parents.’

With violence, some programmes are more suitable than others. Combining your passion for parenting with your love for HBO’s Game of Thrones is probably not the best idea – when a show depicts kiddies killing, it’s wise to pack your own off to bed.

‘Viewers learn to expect violence in some genres and some series,’ said Prof Gunter. ‘If you watched an episode of 24, for instance, there is a strong likelihood you will witness violence and sometimes a lot of it and some may include scenes of torture. You can choose to avoid this if you wish. But in watching the show, you know that this is the kind of action you can expect because it is integral to the story.’

There is a more difficult line to straddle for soaps, which are pre-watershed and watched by viewers of all ages.

According to Ofcom, Channel 4’s Hollyoaks is Britain’s most violent soap, with 11.5 scenes of violence per hour last year, more than five times its tally back in 2001.

Over in Albert Square, meanwhile, the upsetting scenes have been scaled back – BBC’s EastEnders had six violent sequences per hour in 2001, compared to just two last year.

Prof Barrie said: ‘Some people like some violence some of the time. It can add to the excitement of a drama.’ Context and detail are everything, he added.

‘Seeing a bad guy shot by a good guy and falling down at a distance does not bother most viewers. Watching a captive being tortured in close-up detail is likely to evoke more powerful emotional responses.’